Should Marijuana be legalized?

[PhantoMPhones]

A little dissappointed that this was all you replied to after the informations just given

Well, its nothing new really though, saliva tests have been around for a while, I didn't really have anything to add...I do now though lol. (Although, instead of making people get frustrated, and ignoring other information because 'your question wasn't answered', when your question is a tangent to begin with, you could have easily googled it and found the information. I did. And yes I assume, you will have something to say about that too.)

To answer your question. I have said I like the drug laws the way they are now, for reasons I addressed.

Actually, thats not what I asked.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few 'ideas' being put on the table in different areas, breathalyzers saliva, blood etc. As I have said, saliva tests have been around for quite a while, as for roadside testing new laws have been passed in my country (July 2008) that allow police to obtain warrants for bodily fluid tests, seeing that you fail their 'standardized tests', like co-ordination testing etc. As for this bus thing, its pretty frightening. At first glance it seems no worse than a RIDE checkpoint, but this is much more serious. Basically, under the new laws it gives police the right to detain you for testing if say for example they notice you are driving erratically, they pull you over, do their alcohol sobriety tests and you pass, but they still think you are intoxicated. Makes a bit of sense I suppose (supposing there were no other problems with the testing, which there are.) but the kicker is in the ways they carry out the law. With this drug bus thing and the checkpoint they've basically cut out the original determination (seeing if you are driving properly) and gone straight to pulling EVERYONE over, and at that point when it comes to drugs, there are NO RELIABLE TESTS THAT CAN BE GIVEN, for marijuana at least. So basically for 'ANY' reason a cop wants they could subject you to this further testing based on any 'reasonable/probable cause' they want. Example, you are driving home at 2am after a 12 hour shift, you are dead tired and are commuting 45 minutes. You get stopped, cop notices you look sheepish and have red eyes, and BAM drug test. Though I WILL NOTE that they require a warrant to submit you to the test. If they take you in and you immediately willingly take the test without asking if they have a warrant, then its your own fault for submitting to the test. However, if you to refuse the test and they DO obtain a warrant, then you could face a criminal charge.

The problem with the immediate 'standardized tests' they administer (talking to you etc) are obvious as the previous example points out. The problem with the actual drug testing if you are detained is that they CANNOT be proven reliable. As I had mentioned previously drug tests ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE HIGH OR NOT. They are ONLY able to determine metabolite levels in your system. A metabolite is the by-product of your body's metabolism of the drug, is a waste product and therefore is ejected in sweat, saliva, blood, urine, feces etc. Metabolites remain in your system for X amount of time depending on the drug and the amount you use the drug (not immediately the amount you ingest at one time). Someone who smokes pot once or twice a week will have metabolites in their system for 2-3 days, someone who smokes regularly can expect metabolites to last anywhere from 2 weeks to two months. Generally, approximately 30 days, however this depends on factors such as physical activity, health, what foods you eat etc, and not least of all the type of drug test. I think for normal and economical drug tests the threshold for detection is 500um/kg, and for more stringent tests I think the threshold is 300um/kg. What this sort of determines is the 'further back in history' the test can go. The obvious problem of this is that no matter whether you smoked the joint an hour ago or a day ago, you could still possibly test positive. This leaves big problems for civil liberty but also potentially problems in making charges stick, and could potentially cause lawsuits to be filed against authorities (actually this has already happened). Now as satanstoenail stated, there is a chance that they can try to make the test a little less unreliable (notice I did not say more accurate) by testing twice, over a period of time. HOWEVER, this would only work with certain drugs that have a VERY short half-life in the system. Why you ask? Because drug tests CANNOT determine the actual level of the metabolite in the system, they can only detect a threshold. (even when you get a drug test done at a lab, say you request it from your doctor, the results almost always only come back as a threshold) For marijuana for example, this type of tactic WOULD NOT WORK, and would not be able to be used as evidence against you, because the metabolites stay in your system for so long, they have no way of determining exactly when you ingested the drug, and if you are intoxicated, because you would just keep testing positive.

Another interesting fact is that, for example, if you were to have NO pot in your system at all. You are clean so to speak. And then you smoke a joint, get in your car and drive. Subsequently you come across one of these checkpoints, and you fail a sobriety test and they take you to the bus (btw the bus is just a substitute for the station). IF all of this has transpired in the course of less than about an hour, there is a good chance that the DRUG WILL NOT BE DETECTED, as the metabolites have not yet had a chance to reach detectable levels. This also has two sides to the coin. On one hand you could squeak by the test, on the other hand it also proves that the tests are unreliable in yet another sense. It would prove another facet of unreliability in that if it takes AT LEAST an hour for it to be detected in the system, there is NO way of determining whether the person is still high or not, at the time of driving, or at the time of testing.

Basically, I think when it comes down to it, its more of a deterrent than a practical application, however, I am really only focusing on marijuana for what im talking about. It costs money to administer drug tests, and even more if they are wrong and someone sues. Also, there would be a VERY huge case turnover rate as the evidence supporting these tests is almost laughable. As far as I'm concerned this is more a tactic to try and catch the odd big fish moving product, or dangerous drivers on hard substances rather than catching minnows. (In vancouver, which I know isn't quite victoria, the chief of police made a speech a while back stating they were basically going to leave personal smokers be, and even mentioned that they weren't worried about people even GROWING one or two plants for personal use. Now I know thats not policy or anything, but just adds a bit of info.)

Now, I could go to the extreme side of me that could perhaps link this 'testing' to some sort of 'on the DL' initiative to try and catalogue everyone's DNA etc, or even a 'YES/NO list for history of drug use'. Which to me is far more scary than anything else I've discussed. But let's not go there, that's a different issue, and even this testing stuff is a different issue. It is really a tangent completely and has nothing to do with the actual legalization (or not) of marijuana. This new law and program unless disputed and rescinded will remain around, even long after MJ is LEGAL (and in fact the former prime minister tried twice to legalize but was threatened with trade embargoes by the nosy, world police, you guessed it, Gov't of USofA.) At least here, most of the semi-sane politicians are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization. There aren't many fighters for the war on MJ left around here. Testing has been around for alcohol and drugs for ages, and once again I state that there is no evidence or even REASON TO BELIEVE that anything will change if MJ is decriminalized or legalized.

After readin this page of a quote-a-thon I am done trying to explain this. The bottom line is, government doesn't have any business telling me what I can and can't do to myself. Regardless of the supposed reasons/benefits/etc.

If I want to wear no seatbelt, snort some coke, and drive myself off a cliff it is my right. It's is none of YOUR damn business, or anyone elses for that matter.

I don't condone any of the above, but the problem is that as soon as we start restricting personal freedoms, it becomes a slippery slope until we are at the point we are at now, or where they are in England where every thing you do is under a microscope.

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".

Couldn't agree more.

 

[razoredge]

Do you have automobile insurance ?.... Its no longer your right to sustain unnecessary physical damage due to ignorance of a safety device that saves millions in hospital expenses

Does someone sell you that cocaine ?.... The government has every rite to make that illegal... their job is serve and protect

If anyone researched the law, it has nothing about doing drugs, its illegal to produce, distrubute or possess (under the pretence of distribution)

TBH my opinion of people with your apparent general opinion that the government needs to be a big babysitter is a big "Fuck Off".

And you are entitled to that opinion as I am to mine. Though your lack of depth and focus finds you flawed in placing "people with your apparent general opinion" in some specific catagory. When its been blantently clear that my largest concern is that of the trouble that random drug testing by employers has created, and they clearly have no business in what someone does off the clock.

But alas you lack spine to address that and want to dramatize any restrictions designed to restrain abuse of the origional principles of rites. You want to simplifiy it all and cry like a baby on the principle of "I want my pacifier NOW !"

Failure to comprehend the complexities of any society is where in lies the big fuck off.

 

[razoredge]

Well, its nothing new really though, saliva tests have been around for a while, I didn't really have anything to add...I do now though lol. (Although, instead of making people get frustrated, and ignoring other information because 'your question wasn't answered', when your question is a tangent to begin with, you could have easily googled it and found the information. I did. And yes I assume, you will have something to say about that too.)

Actually, thats not what I asked.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few 'ideas' being put on the table in different areas, breathalyzers saliva, blood etc. As I have said, saliva tests have been around for quite a while, as for roadside testing new laws have been passed in my country (July 2008) that allow police to obtain warrants for bodily fluid tests, seeing that you fail their 'standardized tests', like co-ordination testing etc. As for this bus thing, its pretty frightening. At first glance it seems no worse than a RIDE checkpoint, but this is much more serious. Basically, under the new laws it gives police the right to detain you for testing if say for example they notice you are driving erratically, they pull you over, do their alcohol sobriety tests and you pass, but they still think you are intoxicated. Makes a bit of sense I suppose (supposing there were no other problems with the testing, which there are.) but the kicker is in the ways they carry out the law. With this drug bus thing and the checkpoint they've basically cut out the original determination (seeing if you are driving properly) and gone straight to pulling EVERYONE over, and at that point when it comes to drugs, there are NO RELIABLE TESTS THAT CAN BE GIVEN, for marijuana at least. So basically for 'ANY' reason a cop wants they could subject you to this further testing based on any 'reasonable/probable cause' they want. Example, you are driving home at 2am after a 12 hour shift, you are dead tired and are commuting 45 minutes. You get stopped, cop notices you look sheepish and have red eyes, and BAM drug test. Though I WILL NOTE that they require a warrant to submit you to the test. If they take you in and you immediately willingly take the test without asking if they have a warrant, then its your own fault for submitting to the test. However, if you to refuse the test and they DO obtain a warrant, then you could face a criminal charge.

The problem with the immediate 'standardized tests' they administer (talking to you etc) are obvious as the previous example points out. The problem with the actual drug testing if you are detained is that they CANNOT be proven reliable. As I had mentioned previously drug tests ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE HIGH OR NOT. They are ONLY able to determine metabolite levels in your system. A metabolite is the by-product of your body's metabolism of the drug, is a waste product and therefore is ejected in sweat, saliva, blood, urine, feces etc. Metabolites remain in your system for X amount of time depending on the drug and the amount you use the drug (not immediately the amount you ingest at one time). Someone who smokes pot once or twice a week will have metabolites in their system for 2-3 days, someone who smokes regularly can expect metabolites to last anywhere from 2 weeks to two months. Generally, approximately 30 days, however this depends on factors such as physical activity, health, what foods you eat etc, and not least of all the type of drug test. I think for normal and economical drug tests the threshold for detection is 500um/kg, and for more stringent tests I think the threshold is 300um/kg. What this sort of determines is the 'further back in history' the test can go. The obvious problem of this is that no matter whether you smoked the joint an hour ago or a day ago, you could still possibly test positive. This leaves big problems for civil liberty but also potentially problems in making charges stick, and could potentially cause lawsuits to be filed against authorities (actually this has already happened). Now as satanstoenail stated, there is a chance that they can try to make the test a little less unreliable (notice I did not say more accurate) by testing twice, over a period of time. HOWEVER, this would only work with certain drugs that have a VERY short half-life in the system. Why you ask? Because drug tests CANNOT determine the actual level of the metabolite in the system, they can only detect a threshold. (even when you get a drug test done at a lab, say you request it from your doctor, the results almost always only come back as a threshold) For marijuana for example, this type of tactic WOULD NOT WORK, and would not be able to be used as evidence against you, because the metabolites stay in your system for so long, they have no way of determining exactly when you ingested the drug, and if you are intoxicated, because you would just keep testing positive.

Another interesting fact is that, for example, if you were to have NO pot in your system at all. You are clean so to speak. And then you smoke a joint, get in your car and drive. Subsequently you come across one of these checkpoints, and you fail a sobriety test and they take you to the bus. IF all of this has transpired in the course of less than about an hour, there is a good chance that the DRUG WILL NOT BE DETECTED, as the metabolites have not yet had a chance to reach detectable levels. This also has two sides to the coin. On one hand you could squeak by the test, on the other hand it also proves that the tests are unreliable in yet another sense. It would prove another facet of unreliability in that if it takes AT LEAST an hour for it to be detected in the system, there is NO way of determining whether the person is still high or not, at the time of driving, or at the time of testing.

Basically, I think when it comes down to it, its more of a deterrent than a practical application, however, I am really only focusing on marijuana for what im talking about. It costs money to administer drug tests, and even more if they are wrong and someone sues. Also, there would be a VERY huge case turnover rate as the evidence supporting these tests is almost laughable. As far as I'm concerned this is more a tactic to try and catch the odd big fish moving product, or dangerous drivers on hard substances rather than catching minnows. (In vancouver, which I know isn't quite victoria, the chief of police made a speech a while back stating they were basically going to leave personal smokers be, and even mentioned that they weren't worried about people even GROWING one or two plants for personal use. Now I know thats not policy or anything, but just adds a bit of info.)

Now, I could go to the extreme side of me that could perhaps link this 'testing' to some sort of 'on the DL' initiative to try and catalogue everyone's DNA etc, or even a 'YES/NO list for history of drug use'. Which to me is far more scary than anything else I've discussed. But let's not go there, thats a different issue, and even this testing stuff is a different issue. It is really a tangent completely and has nothing to do with the actual legalization (or not) of marijuana. This new law and program unless disputed and rescinded will remain around, even long after MJ is LEGAL. At least here, most of the semi-sane politicians are pro-legalization, or pro-decriminalization. There aren't many fighters for the war on MJ left around here. Testing has been around for alcohol and drugs for ages, and once again I state that there is no evidence or even REASON TO BELIEVE that anything will change if MJ is decriminalized or legalized.

More validation, thanks, good to know I wasnt off one bit.

While drug testing may not be your concern, it is mine, WTF is the problem with that ? Ignoring the detrimental impact drug testing has had in branding someones social security number for life and crying about whether we have the rite to do as we please at the same time is bizarre.

Are any of your semi-sane politicians supporting legalization coming clean as to their tax revenue angle ? I know Canada is really big on the "sin taxes", a model sample I believe.

Legal issues with testing you mentioned sound fine and dandy, until you realize very few have the resources to "fight city hall" (an expression). This is the beauty law makers are aware of in their privileges. They sit in wait to suck as much money out of society as they possibly can, thus providing them with "the good life" and validating their assumed value to society (job security}.

In the States, with a CDL driver, any accident, regardless the indications of who was at fault, is subject to a mandatory drug test, which upon failure is an immeadiate licence revocation. any refusal to test, IS a mandatory revocation.

So yeah, until they address these discriminent issues, I find concerns of legalization a joke.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

So yeah, until they address these discriminent issues, I find concerns of legalization a joke.

Then feel free to leave the discussion regarding LEGALIZATION.

It sounds like theres no appeasing you. On one hand you said they need to crack down on drug users, and you seem to only concern yourself with control, and that hard drug users are deserving of well lets not even go back down that road. But on the other hand you aren't going to be satisfied until the government is on its knees. The latter portion I agree with, but if you think tackling legalization is hard, then you are living a pipe dream, concerning yourself with control over the people in general, over individual social (socioeconomic) issues. Good luck trying to tackle that one as one big issue. It is ONLY by way of aggression (even possibly violence) or some sort of other total collapse that change across the board will take place all at once. Even then, it isn't likely. It is only by way of taking one issue at a time (some focus on one issue and others focus on other issues) and challenging the government on issues one by one that will enable us to affect change. Theres no magic Obama pill where I live. And I'd kick his ass all the way out of my country had I the chance and circumstance.

 

[razoredge]

Then feel free to leave the discussion regarding LEGALIZATION.

Nah, I think I WILL stay, I HAVE been the discussion, all you mamzies have applied to it is "its not right" waah, waah, waah ! As you said before "welcome to the real world"

It sounds like theres no appeasing you. On one hand you said they need to crack down on drug users, and you seem to only concern yourself with control, and that hard drug users are deserving of well lets not even go back down that road.

You have a lack of understanding that I only bring up problems that exist, rather than running around useing some BASIC idealistic principle as a crutch. Im not looking to be appeased by others participating in this topic, I allow them to have their opinion. Sure it would be nice if everyone was free to do drugs... sounds sweet... no ? However some people abuse and become a burdon to others, be it pushing drugs or just the pathetic addictive family member.

Frankly I think we should have the rite to kill people that intentionally fuck up this world for their own selfish benefit too, but alas that wouldnt work either would it ? So sure as society has become massive in population with split beliefs, concerns and interests government has also become massive. I honestly dont believe ANYONE has the answer for this. Its the human equation rearing its ugly head. Its this very abuse of rites, seemingly an inate human tendency that has caused this problem of ever reaching government. So dont blame it on "me" or "the likes of "my kind". Im just one that simply sees how this mess came to be. Im as annoyed by people themselves as I am the government. Like no one can see the forest through the trees.

But on the other hand you aren't going to be satisfied until the government is on its knees.

Dont know what you mean here ?

The latter portion I agree with, but if you think tackling legalization is hard, then you are living a pipe dream, concerning yourself with control over the people in general, over individual social (socioeconomic) issues.

On the other hand I believe it is others living in the pipe dream.

Good luck trying to tackle that one as one big issue. It is ONLY by way of aggression (even possibly violence) or some sort of other total collapse that change across the board will take place all at once. Even then, it isn't likely. It is only by way of taking one issue at a time (some focus on one issue and others focus on other issues) and challenging the government on issues one by one that will enable us to affect change.

Yes and I believe the issue of drug testing for employment and drivers licences is primary, especially considering it was the latest infringment that came to play. I want to reverse that before going further.

Theres no magic Obama pill where I live. And I'd kick his ass all the way out of my country had I the chance and circumstance.

The Obama pill will eventually ware off but Im afraid the withdrawal effects will be devestating, problem is ALL politicians are ass clowns, so there is/was no correct choice. Besides they are powerless to do the things that really need to be done... they have their hands all tied in trying to appease those that make lots of noise about the little stuff, like if its illegal to take a few tokes from time to time.

 

[Odin's Curse]

Secondly, Marijuana DOES NOT KILL BRAIN CELLS.

That's very true Phantom all the studies done show that it changes the shape of braincells which is temporary but with extensive use can cause problems with the way your brain releases chemicals which can cause you to go

But even then its really rare for the schizophrenia which is consatntly harped on about.

Governments like to control, its what they do, weed is illegal becuase its hard to tax, unlike tabbaco its relatively easy to grow and prepare, its sometimes called a penny-pound crop which is grow for a penny sell for a pund which would make the government money through taxes but they can't gruantee that we'll go to the cafes or shops when we've got our own gardens to sit out in. That takes away the power.

I don't know what the deal is with Magic Mushrooms (psilocybines) are illegal (in fact they're class As which puts them up with Heroin) in the UK dispite NO health risks or addictive qualities yet the muscaline variaty which can be dangerous are ungraded Why? because people were buying uo Shrooms by the bucket load at markets because there was loop hole meaning we could get them. Suddenly there's a reason to crack down on them. The reason is power in the hands of the people means power out of the hands of the politians. If they can't control it and tax it to fuck then its a threat and must be prohibited.

I'm not particularly anti-establishment [at least I don't think I am] but the war on drugs at least in reference to halucinagines from weed to DMT is actually a war on the redistrabution of power back to the masses. There was time when all drugs were legal, The world didn't end.

Weeds illegality causes gang wars, provides crime sindicates with finace and ground level troops to fight their battles for territory and cause huge sink-estates and ghettos.

That worse then a couple clowns smoking too much weed.

 

[monoxide_child]

IN RESPONSE TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD

yes marijuanna should be legalized

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You rebel you.

 

[Jinn]

for a brief time, Marijuana was legal in Oregon before smear campaigns started up stronger than ever. Crime went down and the state economy improved.

Nobody has ever died from marijuana and people do not go insane from it's use. It does not cause brain damage, is not physically addicting and it does not have any long term side effects.

The impairments of marijuana are very minor compared to alcohol.

People will counter that if it is legalized, people will just sit around and smoke pot all day, which would be true to some extent, since anything can become crippling and anything can be abused. There are people who sit around all day and play MMOs. It's not the MMO's fault, it's the player's fault for not moderating himself.

There are people who sit all day and eat. Should we make food illegal since these people don't have the self control to moderate their intake?

The fact is, regardless of what the government says, all unbiased research shows that smoking marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes

It is always my belief that laws should be made around the basis of an apology: if I break a law, i should have a reason to apologize. With Marijuana, I don't see anything to apologize for. I am not harming or disrupting anyone in any way shape or form.

the government's war on marijuana is a costly one for taxpayers, and over the years we have spent over 500 billion dollars to squash the marijuana underground and with dismal results. Sure the DEA will bust a few grow labs every now and then but getting pot on the street is just as easy as going to the store and buying a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of jack.

This is a war that they cannot win, and one that we will not let them win. Legalize it.

 

[Rough Divide]

MARIJUANA SHOULD REMAIN ILLEGAL

It's amazing how so-called "potheads" continue to push for legalization of Marijuana. Their argument concludes that it's, " no more dangerous than alcohol." Well, that's at best, "speculative," and at worst it's dead wrong.

The potheads won a modest victory with the speculative Medical Marijuana law, which allows ************* Marijuana" to be sold the public. Most doctors agree that constant use of Marijuana dulls the brain. The potheads get angry when they hear those words because they enjoy getting "over the counter" Marijuana they can legally posses. Those who cannot get a doctor to prescribe Marijuana continue to take the drug illegally, and can be arrested if they caught with the drug in their possession. Frankly, had we known about the dangers of cigarettes, that "drug" would never have been legal either! Those who smoke cigarettes will not live as long as nonsmokers because the drug enhances the development of lung cancer, as well as other health problems. Any drug on the market that is known to cause cancer and other lung diseases would not be allowed if we knew of the dangers of cigarettes early on. However, cigarettes were not known to be dangerous when they were introduced more than 100 years ago. Once the public was hooked, the Government is not going to restrict their sales.

Even worse, those who live with or hang around people who smoke are also more susceptible to lung cancer Cigars are in the same category. They have been linked throat and mouth cancer. But, like cigarettes, they are still legal for anyone over 18 to purchase. Most people who drink alcohol sometimes get upset when alcoholics warn of the dangers associated with alcohol consumption. Taxpayers put out millions for alcohol treatment, usually after they have hurt someone with their car or by simply losing their temper while under the influence.

Voters were "snookered" by Prop. 215 when we passed it in the mid 90s allowing so-called ************* marijuana" to be legally sold. Unfortunately, some "doctors" have been snookered about the dangers of inhaling the smoke from the drug so they give out prescriptions to purchase "medical marijuana." What is happening in Chico over Marijuana should be the source of a new comedy program on late night television. They allow "cooperatives" to sell pot for "medical purposes."

The City Council wants to allow pot to be dispersed from "dispensaries." Enter District Attorney, Mike Ramsey, who tells them if they set up dispensaries, they may will in violation of the law. The DA is right on this one. It's against federal law to possess it, which places the city in the difficult position of writing a law that violates a federal law, which could bring about raids and arrests of city officials if they follow through with their "dispensaries" law. Marijuana need not, and should not become legal in this state. Why?

Because even if we say it's "legal," it's not! It's still a violation of federal law, and that's why the council's action is as worthless as the paper it's written on. It's not surprising the council is pursuing legalizing pot.

They gained their offices because of a strong voter turn out of CSU students. They not only voted on campus, but also voted in a lot of neighborhoods as well. Marijuana is a problem on all state university and college campuses. What's worse, much of the leadership on University campuses think the product is "harmless," and should be made legal. Those supporting a proposed initiative on the substance think they have a right to smoke what they want, and use cigarettes as an example of that right.

This is an issue that must be settled at the national level, not in California college towns where liberal professors and students have a heavy impact on public voting. If you talk to the cops about legalizing pot, they'll tell you this will create more problems than it solves. Somebody driving a car while under the influence of Marijuana could have an accident but the substance, even with a blood test would be difficult to detect.

In effect, it would make our highways even less safe than they are now. Any substance that alters the mind is dangerous to society as a whole.

Yes, we have alcohol now because the attempt at outlawing the substance failed in the 20s.

Marijuana is a mind altering substance that can over time cause some brain damage. Anyone under its influence poses a danger to society particularly if they get on a bike, or drive a car. Alcohol is bad enough. Let's not make a bad situation worse. Marijuana when inhaled over time has been linked to brain damage, as well as damage to the lungs. It's a substance that poses a threat to everyone including its users.

Nobody has ever died from marijuana and people do not go insane from it's use. It does not cause brain damage, is not physically addicting and it does not have any long term side effects.

The impairments of marijuana are very minor compared to alcohol.

People will counter that if it is legalized, people will just sit around and smoke pot all day, which would be true to some extent, since anything can become crippling and anything can be abused. There are people who sit around all day and play MMOs. It's not the MMO's fault, it's the player's fault for not moderating himself.

There are people who sit all day and eat. Should we make food illegal since these people don't have the self control to moderate their intake?

It is always my belief that laws should be made around the basis of an apology: if I break a law, i should have a reason to apologize. With Marijuana, I don't see anything to apologize for. I am not harming or disrupting anyone in any way shape or form.

This is a war that they cannot win, and one that we will not let them win. Legalize it.

You're wrong, http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

 

[Dak]

TL,DR MJ is bad

You didn't give any reason why it should be illegal, just that it isn't a good thing to use.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This and Christianity are two topics I just need to compile a giant fact sheet on so I can copypasta anyone who brings up idiotic 'arguments' about either.

There's simply nothing to debate about marijuana anymore, as there's plenty of information out there to convince anyone who isn't brainwashed by their parents or the government of the obvious stupidity in most of our drug laws, including but not limited to the illegality of pot. Unfortunately, those able to think for themselves are but a small minority in our society.

 

[Rough Divide]

You didn't give any reason why it should be illegal, just that it isn't a good thing to use.

Very mature -.-

 

[Dak]

It is. What is immature is demanding government intervention in other people's lives when their personal choices don't meet your subjective views of good and bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

In effect, it would make our highways even less safe than they are now. Any substance that alters the mind is dangerous to society as a whole.

Yes, we have alcohol now because the attempt at outlawing the substance failed in the 20s.

Marijuana is a mind altering substance that can over time cause some brain damage. Anyone under its influence poses a danger to society particularly if they get on a bike, or drive a car. Alcohol is bad enough. Let's not make a bad situation worse. Marijuana when inhaled over time has been linked to brain damage, as well as damage to the lungs. It's a substance that poses a threat to everyone including its users.

Yes, driving under the influence of marijuana and/or alcohol constitutes a risky behavior. So does driving under the influence of cough medicine. Should we outlaw that as well?

 

[razoredge]

Frankly I think it should just be ignored and what should be illegal is employment discrimination and testing that indicates you smoked sometime over the past 14 days and thus unable to "perform any job". THAT is the biggest pile of crap to come down the tubes in my lifetime.

As for rants about cancer Im glad between cancer, aids and the automobile the human race still has some preditors, its sad that we have offset natural selection as much as we have. It would be another thing if peeps pulled it out rather than striving to be baby factories....

But my stance on government and corporate regulation, control, taxation or any other drugs remains as it was last year and the year before and the year before...ect.

If anyone that so desires could put plants in their back yard or grow room without recourse, without employment testing that should be good enough for all.

 

[razoredge]

Ah bullshit on the driving, I have more mileage driving stoned than I care to think about. Seems to me straight laced pussys are more threat on the road than anyone because they are pussys and inept at most anything even the pencil pushing that seems to be the only job they could land. Perhaps we should outlaw pussys on the highway.

Perhaps we should outlaw work because at least during "the big boom" most of America was over worked and under slept falling asleep at the wheel... in more ways than one.

Pussys, the world is full of pussys

 

[razoredge]

The absolute most mind altering thing that ever happened over the course of my life was when the beaurocracy got their meally little hands and words all over my body, mind and life... and they were pulling more crap that defys the age old "laws of man" than I have pages to write.

Fuck pussifacation

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That was an enjoyable read.

 

[razoredge]

That was an enjoyable read.

as for my part I enjoyed doing it.

every where I look... what do I see... pussys !
all worried about what someone else is doing